All the letters, large and small case. Quartz veins in stone. Molly Montgomery collects natural unedited rocks on the beach creating an alphabet that took years.
like when people try to learn your hobbies or try to play the same sports that you play in an effort to get closer to you, people who try to love you the way you love people, people who will go to places you want to visit just for your sake, people remembering, putting in an effort. just. trying
Well modern camera equipment can almost see in the dark so what do you even need lighting for?
i just gotta real quick make sure that youre joking. you are joking, right?
I’m not joking. Do you understand the ISO value system as it relates to film?
im not arguing that you cant film in the dark without special lighting (obviously you can), im saying you shouldnt. im arguing with the second half of your statement. the lighting in the first picture is very purposeful and enhances the horror of the film. they didnt get into the editing room and go “oh darn, we forgot to shine a light on the guy hiding in the shadows!” jaws was made scarier because you could rarely see the shark, so your brain invented the scariest possibility. you can just… see the whole man in the second picture. having a flat shot where the lighting doesnt even draw in the viewers eye to anything (much less obscure something thats supposed to give the movie tension and anticipation) looks fucking boring and adds nothing
thats what we need lighting for
One of these is much more visually appealing than the other
Lighting in film, and especially horror is so *so* important to the tension in the scene, it’s a significant part of visual storytelling, and the cinematographer/DOP (director of photography) should’ve picked up on that.
It’s particularly embarrassing in comparison to the original material, as with digital/modern technology, you can literally see how the shot looks while you’re shooting.
This should’ve also been sorted in comp and fixed well before distribution.
As already pointed out, the lighting values have no depth to them, thus creating a very flat scene (this is one of the first design principles we are taught in design for animation/film- if I had handed in a lighting shot or concept anything like this, I would’ve failed the module).
If you take the shots and put them into greyscale, you can see this a lot clearer.
In the original Halloween shot, we can see a high range of value (how bright or dark something is)- the lighting is brightest on Jamie Lee Curtis, the viewer’s eye is drawn to her first- we can see her emotions clearly and gain sympathy for her character. Then we are drawn into the darkest value, creating dread, and this is fulfilled and heightened with the contrasting (and next highest) value of Michael’s mask.
In the modern shot, all the values are within a similar range (mid-greys), and there is no proper depth in value- making the tension within the shot fall flat (not ideal for horror).
In fact, the highest value in this shot is the fire in the background- which is where the eye is drawn to first. The background. Not the action. So instead of feeling empathy or dread, we are focusing on the wrong details.
And yes, while it could be said from a film analysis POV that the flatness of the shot ‘puts the characters on the same fighting ground/level of power in the shot,’ I’m not going to give them the benefit.
To top it off, the use of colour in the modern shot highlights the errors in lighting. Whilst sharing the blue/orange colour scheme of the original shot, everything is blue except the one area of contrast, the orange fire. So once again, we are drawn to none of the action and instead the background.
With a very small edit in compositing and lighting to match the original Halloween, the feeling (and focus) of the shot is completely changed. The shot has higher contrast and range of values- the focus is on Curtis, while Michael feels more foreboding in the darkness. The contrast puts the characters on opposite sides- good vs evil, telling a narrative in contrast to the unedited shot.
These effects could’ve easily been achieved by adding a key light on Curtis and rim lighting on Michael in production, and if necessary, editing value depth in comp to enhance the raw footage.
TLDR: Digital filmmakers still need to know traditional film and design theory- just because you have good actors, cameras and composition, does not mean you can forgo basic film craft. The aim of cinematography is to enhance the narrative, not restrict it.
One of my favourite post formats is when someone with a similar URL to op torments them like they are failed clones of each other and it completely changes the tone of the original post.
This is a tournament bracket. We set it up like this for a *reason.*
See the seeds on the side represent who is believed to be most likely to win the event as a whole. If you look closely you’ll see that it is set up so that people with a high seed are up against people with a low seed. You’ll also see that this is set up so that the 4 highest seeds are in different brackets from eachother.
The reason why this is done is so that we don’t have what should be grand finals matchups in round 1. We also do this so low seeds don’t just coast through the competition and make it to grand finals when they don’t actually deserve to be there, they just had no real competition to overcome.
As an added bonus to doing this, bracketing allows for very clear upsets. If you set up the bracket like this everyone knows who your top seeds are meant to be even if you don’t directly state it. So when seed 16 somehow beats seed 1 it really means something.
I know that it’s easier to just throw names on a list in no particular order and be done with, but I urge you to take some time to think about who is most likely to win whatever sexyman pole you’re doing and seed the bracket accordingly.
